Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle, whose city has a large gay and lesbian population, is an outspoken supporter of Amendment 2, the referendum that would add a ban on same-sex marriages to the Florida Constitution.

Naugle said a majority of Floridians support the amendment, but he's not sure if it will hit the 60 percent threshold required for passage. "We know it's going to be a majority in Florida, and we just pray that it's going to get the 60 percent."

Here’s a recent conversation with him about the proposal.

Why do you support Amendment 2?

"I really feel strongly that marriage is a religious institution and we should do everything we can to prevent government from redefining it. And that would be a judge saying marriage is something other than between a man and a woman. I very much support Amendment 2 and urge everyone to vote 'yes.' "

The other side makes the argument that Amendment 2 would impose some peoples' religious beliefs on everyone?

"The Constitution is a document of the people not of the government. It is of the people and by the people. This is on the ballot because the citizens collected signatures to put it on the ballot. And it's to prevent government from redefining marriage because marriage all over the world is defined as an institution between a man and a woman. And this amendment will prevent government from changing that."

What about the argument the other side makes that it would undo domestic partner arrangements and companies and governments would stop giving benefits?

"That argument is very dishonest and the people that are making that argument should be ashamed. It does not affect domestic partnership. It just simply defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

The Mayor is wrong: marriage has a civil component by virtue of the government getting involved with it in the first place. THAT is the part addressed here.

The Constitution LIMITS THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, it does not dole out rights like manna from heaven. What is Naugle afraid of? That he might want to marry a man so he needs the government to prevent him from acting on his impulses?

Of course Naugle is going to make statements that aren't true. We have seen him do this time and again, so why would he decide to be honest now. Honesty is irrelevant if it gets in the way of denigrating a group of citizens.

If anyone wants to see the legal analysis that I have done over the past several months, have them go to the following links. Part 4 is the most relevant, because it details how the Michigan Supreme Court opinion is relevant to understanding Amendment 2. All of these posts detail why this amendment affects domestic partnerships. It is important to note that courts do not usually care what the proponents of the amendment say it means. The court will look at the language of the amendment, and Amendment 2 is written very broadly. So many times, the proponents of the marriage amendments in other states have said one thing before the election and the opposite after the election. I bet you that John Stemberger and his friends will be in court challenging domestic partnerships very soon if Amendment 2 passes.

Part 1: http://florida.bilerico.com/2008/10/the_real_impact_of_floridas_amendment_2.php
Part 2: http://florida.bilerico.com/2008/10/floridas_amendment_2_florida_is_no_conne.php
Part 3: http://florida.bilerico.com/2008/10/floridas_amendment_2_what_does_substanti.php
Part 4: http://florida.bilerico.com/2008/10/floridas_amendment_2_the_lessons_from_mi.php

Think it's time to go back to FLUSH NAUGLE..He needs to go back into the closet. Thank God his term is about over!!!!!! Wake up Naugle, it's 2008..Why don't you work on not voting for the big 5% cola increase that you voted for instead....

What is Nagle trying to sell now. He doesn't want the government involved in defining marriage? This amendment would only suck the government further into what he called a religious based institution. Passing this amendment would put a religious qualification in place for everyone. If he wants to fix the problem for real, he would be for removing all references to marriage from all government laws. Using the word "marriage" in government has us gotten us to where we are now. Simply removing the term "marriage" from the government rules would fix all the problems, that is of course if is a only a mater of the use of the term marriage.
I would be a sad day if a religious based amendment becomes part of the state constitution. Have we all forgot separation of church and state? And what would be next on their agenda for amendments.

He's a lier. He's claiming that it should be a 'religious' matter and not government...yet we are voting on it. Churches would still be able to deny 2 homosexuals a wedding...just like you can't go into any church if you are not a member and get married there.

This is a HATE amendment that will also impact heterosexual domestic partnerships. Marriage needs protection from DIVORCE not same sex unions. Take the church our of our politics.

Jesus would vote NO ON 2. Hitler and the KKK would vote YES. Who do you want to be standing with when it's time to meet God?

Leave a Reply

COMMENT BOARD GUIDELINES:

You share in the SunSentinel.com community, so we just ask that you keep things civil.
Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion.
If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Comment:

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Advertisement

About the authors

Broward County is an unusually rich territory for political news. The Broward Politics blog is devoted to the politicians, the activists, the parties, the policies, the issues, the elections - in the county and its communities.

ANTHONY MAN is the Sun Sentinel’s political writer. Concentrating on local political people, parties and trends, he also covers state and national politics from a South Florida perspective. He's coordinating the Broward Politics blog with contributions from reporters throughout the county. Before moving to the Broward political beat, he covered politics and Palm Beach County government for the Sun-Sentinel, including touch-screen voting and the Supervisor of Elections Office. He's also covered municipal, county, state, and federal elections and made repeated reporting trips to Tallahassee for regular and special sessions of the Florida Legislature. He joined the Sun-Sentinel in 2002 after covering state and local politics in Illinois. Like so many others in South Florida, he's originally from a New York suburb (Rockland County).

BRITTANY WALLMAN covers Broward County and news. A 1991 University of Florida graduate, Wallman started her journalism career at the Fort Myers News Press. She and her husband Bob Norman have two young children -- Creed and Lily. Wallman was born in Iowa and spent half her childhood there, the remainder in Oklahoma. She has covered local government and elections her entire reporting career -- including covering the infamous 2000 recount here in the presidential election. (She has a Mason jar with a "hanging chad'' inside to prove it.)

LARRY BARSZEWSKI covers Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors. In the past, he has reported on Palm Beach County government and schools, aging and social issues, Pompano Beach, Deerfield Beach and state legislative sessions. He wrote for the Denver Post, Bradenton Herald and Miami Herald before joining the Sun Sentinel in 1988. A Massachusetts native, he lives in Boca Raton with his wife, Maggie, and teenage daughters Jessica and Jackie.